No one said we were advocating for it. And I think that's been a source of
misunderstanding. I'm saying, given what our STATED goals are this is what
results.

If we want to change our goals then we should do that.

I'm trying to point out if our goal was to only reach for
software-freedom-religious folks who are heavily involved in it, we could
still do a much better job for *them.*

okay.

my short answer to this is easy:
newest != stable.

Newest - 1 != stable either, since it gets abandoned in 6 months. Older than
that != stable as well, since it's abandoned. I used to run rawhide. I
retreated to newest release. Should I now retreat to newest release - 1 and
update every 6 months to newest release - 1?

If that's the case, totally fine, but I think then we need a little bit of
rebranding. I don't think people like feeling that they are behind the curve,
especially if they are your target user of techie! E.g. current model:

You're not changing anything you're doing then, just renaming things. Just an
idea; may or may not be the right problem to be solving.

Think back to RHL days. Remember the 'avoid the .0' strategy that A LOT
of people adopted?
Every fedora release is more or less a .0. THAT IS BY DESIGN OF OUR GOALS.

There is no x.1 then. There is nothing to use unless you want operating your
computer to be a Sisyphean running-up-the-escalator-the-wrong-way affair. How
does my tolerating that benefit Fedora though? There's no system for me (or
others) to easily allow Fedora to reap any benefit of my blood; I just bleed
in the corner, in vain. [1]

So, if our target is people who are willing to submit themselves to pain for
Fedora's benefit, our top priority should be building tools to reap the most
benefit from their sacrifice [1], making it dead simple to identify and
report the issue and follow up when the developer needs more information to
fix the problem.

All in all, it does sound like *I'm* not a target user for Fedora. In fact,
it sounds like (please please please please correct me if I'm wrong) that the
Fedora you and Mike are pushing for is not meant to be used as a productive
desktop by anybody, rather it's meant to be a laboratory setting they submit
themselves to for the benefit of science and progress!

Actually Mike and I aren't really pushing for it - we ARE pushing for us
to be realistic about our goals vs what we are actually achieving.

You know what this discussion says to me more than anything else:
Lots of people claim to want fedora, but what they really want is centos.
Not rhel.
centos.
why, you ask?

b/c they want something that a lot of people spent a lot of time making
stable and they want it secure and updated.